Minutus

None of them, neither Scholten nor Sankaran, has ever said or written anywhere that the old basics should be abandoned; on the contrary, every time I heard them, they insisted that to use their new methodology, a sound knowledge of the basics was indispensable.
And not everybody is able to use those methodologies; the big problem is to be able to recognise one's own limitations and abilities.
As the NRA often says: "guns don't kill, it is people with guns that kill"...............
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for articles and information.

Gee, well as I said they were echoing sentiments heard in seminars they attended, and they all sounded strangely alike - firing bullets at traditional homoeopathy. I'm glad I gave it a miss.

Well said. But there is a minor bone of contention that is hard to fathom from Jan Scholten with regards to provings. He genuinely does feel that they are unnecessary with regards to the periodic table. So in this particular way he is suggesting
'out with the old and in with the new".
With regards to the overall success rate of his method I notice that those getting any relevant success rate are the same half dozen people who have been contributing helpful cases to his website and have been personally trained by him for many years and have a classical background.
As an aside to other portions of this thread by I believe yourself and Chris, I firmly believe that these theories do belong in higher education only after a 4 year program based in Organon/Hahnemannian Homeopathy. It should be post grad work only.
Right now there are at least 6 programs here in the US that have gone from just Classical to mostly theoretical in just the last 12-24 mos. There are at least 4 more on their way to this conversion. Some programs have cut there Classical curricula by 50% or more! What's more, is that there are no prerequisites to any of the programs so we have several classes of students now who are going into to these schools with no Homeopathic background at all. And yes they are floundering.
I have just completed a sensation/Scholten method 4 yr program that had no Homeopathic foundation to speak of at all. (Yes I have now studied the sensation method for 9 yrs and yes I have found more holes than a rusty sieve, but most importantly I have been an avowed objective skeptic going into it all. How are students with no Homeopathic background going to be able to identify any hurdles if they have no comparatives and it is taught in such a way as to ignore the inherent frailties that any and all theories face?) A majority of the students came in with absolutely no Homeopathic background at all. They are unfortunately horrible prescribers which firstly does a gross disservice to the client and secondly to Homeopathy as a whole.
These "methods" should be taught as only post graduate work in my opinion. I think in one quick generation the "new and sexy/vibrance" of these ideas will either sink or swim. If they are to swim it will require critical thought on our parts, peer review and obviously the continued revisions by the "inventors"themselves.

Ps I have solved a number of cases by using bits and pieces of these theories. But only after a number of years identifying when and most importantly how to use them.

Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD." wrote:

On Jul 2, 2009, at 8:34 PM, Christine Gillen wrote:
Will does that, and also uses family information to allow use of
remedies with scanty materia medica, e.g. by recognizing that a case is
very close to (some plant remedy) but that remedy is not quite right,
so he looks next at other family members. (He notes that there are
some families where most of the remedies "look" very similar, and
others where they are varied; he does not do it by rote.)
I did not say that, and I did not mean that.
That does sound like a very extreme viewpoint. I've said nothing of
the kind!
Well, that's a very fair question! I can say that your experience is
not echoed everywhere.
E.g. my own, after an initial several years of *marvelous* success with
a polychrest as *apparent* simillimum, followed and interspersed by
several "situational" and acute and nosode remedies, I then hit a
(figurative) wall and had about six "very classical" and well
experienced prescribers chasing my "next remedy" for about eight years,
with nothing more than limited and local success. The log-jam was
finally broken by a "new" remedy, tho that too is not the end of the
remedy line for me!

One's "statistics" will depend on a lot of things:
Who's your patient base? (State of health, medical history,
environment they live in, etc.--I know you're familiar with those
issues)
What are your patients' and your goals for "cure"? (How good a track
record does Boenninghausen's method have on complaints such as ADHD,
autism, environmental allergies, neurosis? Do you figure you do, or
could in a busy practice of that kind of complaints, get a high rate of
long-lasting and deep mental / emotional level cure? I ask this not as
a challenge; just don't know the nature and goals of your practice.)
For some years now (since we moved) I'm not in any sort of close touch
with Sankaran students, but I thought he had always advocated strong
grounding in the basics; evidently I missed something there. Solid
grounding in the basics, I would think, couldn't help but be a good
thing.

Shannon

what do you consider the 'holes' in the sensation method and
scholten's schema?
i agree with you that it is necessary to have a sound base in
the organon and classical homeopathy. however, there are many
avenues in case taking and it seems that each practitioner has
their own unique style of applying the guidelines. these newer
methods certainly push that envelope.
tanya

Wow, you're a bit testy! Okay, you asked:
One's "statistics" will depend on a lot of things:
Who's your patient base? (State of health, medical history, environment they live in, etc.--I know you're familiar with those issues)
What are your patients' and your goals for "cure"? (How good a track record does Boenninghausen's method have on complaints such as ADHD, autism, environmental allergies, neurosis? Do you figure you do, or could in a busy practice of that kind of complaints, get a high rate of long-lasting and deep mental / emotional level cure? I ask this not as a challenge; just don't know the nature and goals of your practice.)
I'm an average suburban practitioner, nothing fancy. The state of health of people who make appointments range from garden variety temporary acute conditions to chronic dermatological complaints, chronic fatigue, thyroid complaints, menstruation disorders, broken relationships. Mmm, yes, lots of neurosis and some hypochondriacal tendencies. I've learnt not to take on certain cases anymore such as those under heavy duty psychiatric medication or suffering from schizophrenia. But generally, I'd say the bulk of cases concern hormonal imbalances, depression, suppression and repression. Is that any different to anyone else? I live close to the heart of the city.
My goal is not to make people happy-ever-after and take away all their discontentment or change their personality or remove petty frustrations with a pillule. My goal is simply to address the current state of pathology which affects them, whether that be mental/emotional or physical - assuming it is something that is possible to treat with homoeopathy. I haven't treated a lot of autism or aspergers cases, but I use the Pocketbook for repertorization. Regular polychrest remedies seem to do okay, Phosphorus, Lycopodium, Calc carb and of course Belladonna, Hyos... Parents report that there are some obvious improvements in attention span and eye contact, it's great when the aspergers kids can attend school without being disruptive in the classroom. Last year I listened to a lecture by Fran Sheffield presented at the Sydney Homoeopathic Conference. I don't know if she uses the same repertories as I do but I was really heartened to hear that she found success with a similar bunch of remedies in the kinds of autism-spectrum cases too. That was really encouraging. I really don't understand why people think Boenninghausen repertories are only good for acute complaints, and not deep seated mental/emotional cases.
Chris.

Oops, sorry Chris, I was not *feeling* the slightest bit testy when I
wrote that--just interested. Sorry it came across that way. (Maybe it
was picking up the "reflection" of recent threads? ) Anyway,
below:
Thanks, I really was asking because I am *not* very familiar with
Boenninghausen's method, and have been curious about just what the
limits might be of the smaller number of remedies, or whether the
broader (and also more specific) ways that they *appear* (from my
limited understanding) to be chosen might enable them to get broader
action than I'd expect. I should take the time I spend here, and spend
it instead with some more books, incl. about B. Will have to do
that soon...

Another factor I forgot to mention, is whether you have many patients
who you've followed for more than a few years. One observation i've
heard, and seem to also be observing, is that a case that moves nicely
in the early years may stall (as my own did), and I have assumed this
has to do with the later needed remedies being more unusual ones. Some
will say that any remedy which lets a case "stall", was not truly the
needed one in the first place; I'm only repeating, not defending...

Certainly my opinions on the topic have been colored by my own
experience. If I had been in the happy circumstance of having nearly
all of my own patients doing just great on plain, solid classical
prescribing, and my own chronic case had gone swimmingly (more or less)
over the past 20+ years with the same, then I'm sure I would be on
board as well, saying "All you need is classical!" And "All you need
are the good ol' remedies!" That was my training. What reason would I
have for thinking otherwise?

But when things do not work out as you'd expected, you choose between
either the ol' head-and-a-brick-wall approach, or you start exploring
other avenues. At that point, which path is taken is surely a matter
of personal choice, and there are no guarantees either way. Sticking
with our very-classical prescriber through the nearly five years it
took him to find a truly curative remedy for our daughter, that was an
instance where the brick wall gave way, we won. In my own case,
I've found it more expedient to explore the other avenues, and those
have also paid some dividends in treating a couple of family members.

IMO it's personal choice. But I very heartily agree with you about the
importance of beginning with the basics! I too have heard of people
getting "advanced" methods before (or instead of) the basics, and I
shudder...

Best wishes,
Shannon

Hello Tanya,
Without re-igniting the previous 3 yrs worth of "holes" discussions. I will pick a new one.
How about that Rajan has chosen to put several plants in several families while they are still points of contention about where they belong botanically to botanists? This throws the idea of a universal sensation for a given family of plants into quite some amt of disarray. There are a number of projects going on worldwide in which geneticists are reclassifying large numbers of plants in and out of various families and even phylum's based on their genetic composition. So there is a massive hole right there, as in the sensation method it is imperative to classify and restrict your pt into a kingdom as soon as possible. Here is one of the myriad examples of the problem here: The Solanacea family of rxs includes Bell, Stram, and Hyos. The unique trait among these rxs is the alkaloid atropine. Many of the keynotes for these rxs are simply due to this fairly intoxicating poison. Well Caps. along with the plethora of Solanums belong to the same family yet you could never tell by looking at the MM. The point being, if I gave any experienced Homeopath a copy of the provings of Capsicum, Tab, Sol-t etc. you would never be able to identify their botanical classification much less their specific family derived sensation. I could go on ad nauseum with many more examples falling into this same category.
Here is another weakness. I have seen time and again that the sensation and Scholtens method both begin to burst at the seams when either children under the age of about 8 are treated this way or rural demographics, i.e people outside of major cities or with rural upbringings. The sensation method beats into the ground hand gestures and largely seeks to expose and exaggerate the "non sensical babble" that some pts get into. This works in a setting in which the demographic is primarily metropolitan in nature. This holds in India as well as the US. And yes Sankaran will attest to both of these observations, although you may have to get him one on one to admit it.
Where do the energy source rxs, i.e. x-ray, radiations etc. fit into the schema? Where do nosodes fit?
Although I must also point out that I feel that I have learned much about many rxs I would never have known about by studying the MM in this way. Believe it or not I have spun the weaknesses into strengths for memorizing key aspects of small rxs b/c they don't fit!

Best regards, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "tamarque@..." wrote:

On Jul 3, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Richard Nash- Shannon wrote:
This gives great illustration of the idea that different methods are
suited to different patient bases (and different practitioner
strengths).

Hello Shannon,
I will in a general sense agree but in a more specific sense disagree. There are methods that cover much larger swaths of the public anywhere and then there are methods like these aforementioned, that cover narrower groups of any base population. And yes I think it important to know ones strengths when prescribing but always with an eye towards improving ones weaknesses, should we have the inward eye and fortitude to do so. My grandma always said "you get what you put in". So here we are trying to further understandings of one of the most important sciences ever.

Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote: